Obama motion to dismiss denied.

[gsvol]

Update on Lawsuit Filed Against Hawaii Dept of Health on Behalf of Virginia Sunahara's Brother | Birther Report: Obama Release Your Records

As reported here brother of Virginia Sunahara, Duncan Sunahara has filed suit against Hawaii to obtain access to Virginia's original long-form birth certificate. Dean Haskins of the Birth Summit lays out the details below. See the complaint here.

WAS BABY VIRGINIA SUNAHARA'S IDENTITY STOLEN?
---------------------------------

Upon closer inspection, we learned that the number assigned to Virginia's birth certificate is 151-1961-01180, and realized that, statistically, that number simply cannot be legitimate.

Now, here's what's wrong with that number: we all know that the last group of numbers on the "certificate" Barack Obama claims is his official record is 10641, and his certificate was supposedly processed on August 8, 1961. We also know that the Nordyke twins were assigned the numbers 10637 and 10638, and their certificates were processed on August 11, 1961. Virginia Sunahara's birth certificate states that it was processed on August 10, 1961, but the number it was assigned is 443 higher than the Nordyke twin whose certificate was stamped with the number 10637.

We know that there were 17,616 births in Hawaii in 1961, which shows a statistical average of 48 births per day. To arrive at the number now assigned to Virginia's birth certificate, nine to ten days would have had to have lapsed after the Nordyke twins' certificates were processed, but Virginia's processing date was the day BEFORE the Nordyke's.
--------------------------

Having attempted every administrative procedure to obtain that to which Duncan is statutorily entitled, a lawsuit was filed on Tuesday, January 3, 2012.
----------------------

It is still unbelievable that, in 2008, our so-called media dispatched teams to sift through Sarah Palin's trash looking for anything they could find to discredit her, but did nothing of the sort regarding an empty suit Marxist from Chicago who refused to provide any substantive documentation regarding his eligibility. When the media and the politicians refuse to do their jobs, it is up to "We the People" to do it for them—and that is exactly what we are continuing to do.

 

[therealUT]

GS, do you think an individual should be rewarded or punished according to the actions of their parents?

 

[KiffinKiller]

Depends if we're talking about his kids...or strangers he will never have to meet.

 

[gsvol]

GS, do you think an individual should be rewarded or punished according to the actions of their parents?

What does that have to with the issue at hand?

Do you approve of deceipt?

 

[DinkinFlicka]

What does that have to with the issue at hand?

Do you approve of deceipt?

Lol... disceipt.

GS, do you think an individual should be rewarded or punished according to the actions of their parents?

 

[therealUT]

What does that have to with the issue at hand?

Do you approve of deceipt?

Answer my one question and I will answer two of yours.

 

[gsvol]

Answer my one question and I will answer two of yours.

Simple answer, no.

But then genetics and environment do make a difference.

Furthermore the constitutional article was put there for a very logical and legitimate reason, if that topic is what you are attempting to infer with your very nebulus question.


Georgia case could determine whether Obama

Americans have finally made the acquaintance of a judge who is willing to adhere to the demands of the Constitution and the laws he swore an oath to uphold upon taking office.

Georgia State Office of Administrative Hearings Judge Michael M. Malihi ruled this week that, as stated in Georgia law, “every candidate for federal office shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.” (1)

In his ruling, Mahili stated quite simply that “the court finds that the defendant (Barack Obama) is a candidate for federal office who has been certified by the state executive committee of a political party and therefore must, under Code Section 21-2-5, meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.” (1)
------------------------

If Irion is successful in obtaining an injunction preventing the Democrat Party from certifying Obama on the Georgia ballot, it will also act to prevent his Party certification and therefore appearance on ANY state ballot nationwide. (2)

Obama has spent a million(s) bucks in legal fees to keep his personal history from the American public. Maybe this will be the one that gets him.

 

[therealUT]

Simple answer, no.

But then genetics and environment do make a difference.

Furthermore the constitutional article was put there for a very logical and legitimate reason, if that topic is what you are attempting to infer with your very nebulus question.

1. Where a person is born is a decision of their parents. Making foreign born individuals ineligible to run for POTUS is punishing individuals for the deeds of their parents.

2. Provide the logical and legitimate reason, please.

 

[NEO]

You're right, Jesus was 'natural born'.

Always comes back to Jesus with you.

You would gain so much more respect from me as a thinker if you could let your anti-christian bias go.

 

[therealUT]

Always comes back to Jesus with you.

You would gain so much more respect from me as a thinker if you could let your anti-christian bias go.

My anti-Christian (actually, anti-religous) bias would not manifest itself in a law that says Christians can not be elected POTUS. GS's anti-foreign born bias does manifest itself in support of a law that would keep foreign born persons from being POTUS. Such a law is absolutely ridiculous.

 

[NEO]

My anti-Christian (actually, anti-religous) bias would not manifest itself in a law that says Christians can not be elected POTUS. GS's anti-foreign born bias does manifest itself in support of a law that would keep foreign born persons from being POTUS. Such a law is absolutely ridiculous.

you went from Christians to birth country.

And this isn't about GS. It's about you.

You are a singular person free of him.

I personally believe someone should have to be born here and raised here so they understand the values and way this country works. All countries cultures are not the same. I would not think it fair for an American to be allowed to run France. This is the problem that happened with Rome and Englad when Scotland was run by people not even from there.

All countries have different, unique, and wonderful cultures and need to be kept and valued.

 

[therealUT]

you went from Christians to birth country.

And this isn't about GS. It's about you.

You are a singular person free of him.

I personally believe someone should have to be born here and raised here so they understand the values and way this country works. All countries cultures are not the same. I would not think it fair for an American to be allowed to run France. This is the problem that happened with Rome and Englad when Scotland was run by people not even from there.

All countries have different, unique, and wonderful cultures and need to be kept and valued.

If citizens want to elect a foreign-born citizen, then what is the problem? Why limit the choices for the citizens?

 

[gsvol]

If citizens want to elect a foreign-born citizen, then what is the problem? Why limit the choices for the citizens?

To prevent quisling presidents such as we now have.

1. Where a person is born is a decision of their parents. Making foreign born individuals ineligible to run for POTUS is punishing individuals for the deeds of their parents.

2. Provide the logical and legitimate reason, please.

1. Well in that case you need to pursue changing existing law.

2. Explained above.

 

[therealUT]

To prevent quisling presidents such as we now have.

So, in order to keep a traitor out of the White House we ought to go ahead and restrict freedom and choice in America? This makes perfect sense in a world in which the GOP runs a 'serious candidate' has has referred to 'liberal freedom' as a big lie and denounced the political philosophy of J.S. Mill.

1. Well in that case you need to pursue changing existing law.

It certainly does need to be changed.

2. Explained above.

Not in the least.

I like how you always throw the 'socialist' pictures up like they somehow serve as logical arguments. Find me one post of mine in which I endorse a socialist policy (remember, socialism is an economic system).

 

[gsvol]

So, in order to keep a traitor out of the White House we ought to go ahead and restrict freedom and choice in America? This makes perfect sense in a world in which the GOP runs a 'serious candidate' has has referred to 'liberal freedom' as a big lie and denounced the political philosophy of J.S. Mill.

I'm not all that happy with the GOP, however the democrats have no regard for the law at all.

It certainly does need to be changed.

Why?

The point is, it hasn't been changed yet and that gives legal recourse to those who insist that the law be complied with.

Update: Hawaii Judge Grants Expedited Hearing for Atty. Orly Taitz| The Post & Email

Taitz reported that Hawaii Deputy Attorney General Jill T. Nagamine had stated that Hawaii was not obligated to honor a subpoena from another state. Atty. Van Irion told The Post & Email that Judge Malihi could have the officials in Hawaii arrested and jailed if they refused to comply based on the Full Faith and Credit clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Nagamine had earlier asked that cameras not be allowed in Nishimura’s courtroom. Nagamine is attempting to defend her client’s right to refuse to release Obama’s purported original birth certificate following a subpoena issued by the U.S. District Court in Honolulu.

Malihi also signed a similar subpoena directed to “Mr. Barrack Hussein Obama” at the White House, commanding him to produce “Any and all certified birth records, certified long form birth certificate, certified school/university registration records, certified immigration/naturalization records, certified passport records and redacted certified SS-5 applications under the names Barack (Barry) Soetoro, Barack (Barry) Soebarkah, Barack (Barry) Obama, and any and all combinations of thereof and any other names used.” Taitz stated that that subpoena has been sent to Obama’s Georgia attorney, Michael Jablonski.

New Analysis on Obama's Democratic Party of Hawaii Certification of Nomination; Had Legal Help From Non-Partisan Hawaiian Election Commission | Birther Report: Obama Release Your Records

New analysis of Democrat Party's official 2008 Certification of Nomination for Obama reveals that reasons for his sudden trip to Hawaii in October, 2008 was to visit more than just his sick grandmother. Hawaiian election laws and post-dated documents reveal he may have attended a hearing with Hawaiian Chief Elections Officer regarding his disqualification from ballot due to lack of certified Constitutional eligibility.-
------------------------

Now, however, a new investigation of Hawaii’s Election Commission and the laws used by the state’s Office of Elections to approve or deny candidates for inclusion on presidential ballots raises shocking revelations about the power held by too few unaccountable people. The evidence shows that agents, working within the jurisdiction of state law, opened shadowy legal channels enabling Obama an opportunity usurp presidential power and assault the Constitutional sovereignty of the American people.
-------------

Compounding this controversy, in August, 2008, only two months before the election, the Democrat Party of Hawaii’s (DPH) chairman, Brian Schatz, now serving as the Lt. Governor of Hawaii, refused to include legally required, explicit language in its sworn Official Certification of Nomination (OCON) that Barack Obama was indeed legally qualified to serve as President under the provision of the U.S. Constitution. As a result, the Democrat Party of Hawaii refused to legally certify Barack Obama as that state’s Democratic nomination for President of the United States.

This was not some prudent effort to prevent the inclusion of an ineligible candidate on the Hawaiian presidential ballot. As this investigation shows, it was done to protect the political careers of Schatz and the DPH while relying on more inane, anti-constitutional Hawaiian statutes to clear the way for Obama's candidacy.
-------------

The Democratic Party of Hawaii’s OCON for Barack Obama clearly did not meet the requirement of HRS 11-113 (c)(1)(B), which clearly states that the (DPH) party official (Brian Schatz) shall file a sworn application with the chief election officer (Kevin Cronin) which explicitly includes “…a statement that each candidate is legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution…” and is to be filed not later than 4:30 p.m. on the sixtieth day (September 5, 2008) prior to the general election (November 4, 2008).
------------------

The inclusion of the specific language previously omitted by the DPH's OCON indicates nothing less than a conspiracy on the part of the DNC and the DPH to force a confirmation of Barack Obama’s eligibility by the state of Hawaii, without actually verifying it.
---------------------------

This indicates a crime. If the original OCON had contained the amended statement prior to being signed, it would have been left in the body of the statement for ALL the OCONs received by all the states. There is no rational motive for the DNC to omit this statement post-signing because it only reinforces allegations by Obama and the DNC that he is eligible in every state. Which he is not, at least we know, in Hawaii. The fact that it only appears in Hawaii's OCON indicates a cover-up.

Not in the least.

What is there not to understand about my explanation?

I like how you always throw the 'socialist' pictures up like they somehow serve as logical arguments. Find me one post of mine in which I endorse a socialist policy (remember, socialism is an economic system).

You seem to endorse Obama, Obama's policies are very socialistic and he has filled his administration with like minded people.

 

[therealUT]

Why?

The point is, it hasn't been changed yet and that gives legal recourse to those who insist that the law be complied with.

The law was written at a time when no popular vote mechanism was involved in the POTUS election process. The Founders saw that it would be tempting for the electors from the state, who at that time only numbered sixty-nine, to both accept bribes and foreign influence.

However, now that there is a popular vote mechanism and there are 538 electors, such bribery and influence is not much of a threat. If the majority of the citizens of the United States want to elect a Canadian or a Mexican, why shouldn't they be able to?

What is there not to understand about my explanation?

It was hardly an explanation; and, I disagree with your statement that allowing voters to vote for someone who was not born in America leads to a higher probability of electing a traitor. Feel free to find premises that I agree with you on and then argue up, though. Your stance prohibits children who are adopted into the US when they are five and six months old from ever being eligible to run for POTUS...you think they are more likely to be traitors?

You seem to endorse Obama, Obama's policies are very socialistic and he has filled his administration with like minded people.

I have endorsed Obama over Santorum and Gingrich. I have also voiced my disagreement with Obama's policies. Will I join your lynch mob and attack ever little think Obama does or make up a series of falsehoods about Obama? No; I do not believe that the ends justify the means.

Would I rather have someone taking away my money than my freedom? Yes; so, if it comes down to Obama or Newt, or Obama or Santorum, then I will vote for Obama. If it comes down to Obama or Romney, I will write in. If it comes down to Obama or Paul, I will vote for Paul.

 

[gsvol]

The law was written at a time when no popular vote mechanism was involved in the POTUS election process. The Founders saw that it would be tempting for the electors from the state, who at that time only numbered sixty-nine, to both accept bribes and foreign influence.

However, now that there is a popular vote mechanism and there are 538 electors, such bribery and influence is not much of a threat. If the majority of the citizens of the United States want to elect a Canadian or a Mexican, why shouldn't they be able to?

They also saw that a president could be elected whose loyalties might not be to America.

How much Chinese money did Clinton receive into his campaign coffers?

How much Saudi money did Obama receive?

It was hardly an explanation; and, I disagree with your statement that allowing voters to vote for someone who was not born in America leads to a higher probability of electing a traitor. Feel free to find premises that I agree with you on and then argue up, though. Your stance prohibits children who are adopted into the US when they are five and six months old from ever being eligible to run for POTUS...you think they are more likely to be traitors?

I would prefer to just agree to disagree.

Either we adhere to the law as it is, change the law, or disregard the law.

Following the third choice as we now may be doing doesn't bode well of the future of a nation that plans to foster a peaceful citizenry.

I have endorsed Obama over Santorum and Gingrich. I have also voiced my disagreement with Obama's policies. Will I join your lynch mob and attack ever little think Obama does or make up a series of falsehoods about Obama? No; I do not believe that the ends justify the means.

I don't see how anyone could ever vote for Obama, given his record for the past three years.

What falsehood have I made up about Obama?

The truth is bad enough and we probably don't know half of that.

Would I rather have someone taking away my money than my freedom? Yes; so, if it comes down to Obama or Newt, or Obama or Santorum, then I will vote for Obama. If it comes down to Obama or Romney, I will write in. If it comes down to Obama or Paul, I will vote for Paul.

:crazy:

I do give you credit for at least stating your position, something several other Obama supporters are loathe to do.

 

[gsvol]

Ga. Judge Orders President to Appear at Hearing - ABC News

A judge has ordered President Barack Obama to appear in court in Atlanta for a hearing on a complaint that says Obama isn't a natural-born citizen and can't be president.

It's one of many such lawsuits that have been filed across the country, so far without success. A Georgia resident made the complaint, which is intended to keep Obama's name off the state's ballot in the March presidential primary.

An Obama campaign aide says any attempt to involve the president personally will fail and such complaints around the country have no merit.

Pursuant to OSAH Rule 616-1-2-.19, Defendant Barack Obama is hereby notified to be and appear before the Georgia Office of State Administrative Hearings, the Honorable Michael M. Malihi presiding, at the Fulton County Justice Center Building, 161 Pryor Street, Courtroom G-40, Atalanta, Georgia on January 26, 2012 at 9:00 a.m., and to bring with him into said Court the following items to be used as evidence by the Plaintiffs in the above-styled case:


(a) One (1) of the two (2) original certified copies of Defendant Barack Obama's ("long form") Certificate of Live Birth as referenced in the four (4) pages of Exhibit "A" attached;

(b) All medical, religious, administrative, or other records of or related to Defendant Barack Obama's birth;

(c) Any and all United States Passports, passport applications, and passport-related records for Defendant Barack Obama;

(d) Any and all passport, passport applications, and passport-related records for Defendant Barack Obama from any country, nation, or sovereignty;

(e) Any and all college and university admission information, both undergraduate and postgraduate, for Defendant Barack Obama, including, but not limited to, admission applications; letters of recommendation; school transcripts; financial aid applications; scholarship applications; and any and all correspondence awarding admission, financial aid, scholarships, or the like;

(f) Any and all applications and accompanying materials submitted by or for Defendant Barack Obama to the State Bar of Illinois, the State Supreme Court of Illinois, the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois, and any other similar entity regulating the admission to the practice of law;

(g) Any and all other documents, materials, and papers having any relation to the subject of the birthplace, citizenship, denizenship, and national origin of Defendant Barack Obama;

(h) Any and all other documents, materials, and papers having any relation to the subject of the birthplace, citizenship, denizenship, and national origin of Defendant's father, Barack Obama Sr.

(i) All correspondence between Defendant Barack Obama and any other person, firm, political party, or entity discussing Defendant's status vel non as a natural born Citizen pursuant to Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the United States Constitution.

Defendant will note that the preceding items are requested hereby, whether they pertain to Defendant under his name Barack Obama or any other name, including but not limited to Barack Hussein Obama II; Barry Soetoro; Barry Soebarkah; Barry Obama, or the like.

Several states have ongoing litigation on ballot challenges to Obama.

Stop Obama From Another Four Years | Obama State Ballot Challenge 2012

 

[DinkinFlicka]

Lol, fraidy cat.

 

[RespectTradition]

If the majority of the citizens of the United States want to elect a Canadian or a Mexican, why shouldn't they be able to?

Since you are whole-heartedly against any involvement of the popular vote in the choosing of the president, isn't this a little disingenuous?

They also saw that a president could be elected whose loyalties might not be to America.

How much Chinese money did Clinton receive into his campaign coffers?

You do realize that you just proved that being American-born doesn't make you free from foreign influence, don't you?

 

[lawgator1]

If foreign money is an issue, how about Romney's hundred mill in the Caymans?

 

[volinbham]

If foreign money is an issue, how about Romney's hundred mill in the Caymans?

Um that's not foreign money - it's Romney's money.

Carry on.

 

[lawgator1]

Um that's not foreign money - it's Romney's money.

Carry on.

Yeah, but it's laundered overseas. To avoid paying his fair share.

 

[JokermanVol]

words words Barry's a mussy from Ethopia words words comics.

 

[RespectTradition]

Yeah, but it's laundered overseas. To avoid paying his fair share.

His fair share is 0 IMO, the same as mine should be, or even yours.

There is nothing at all fair about taking something from someone by force to pay for something that that someone would not voluntarily spend his money on.